Actively misunderstanding the past “just enough” to make us look good.
So - here are a few inklings:
- The miscommunication didnt start in 2007 when russia and the west had differing opinions, but the west “communicated badly”. It started after Merkel was on her way out, and the US pressed ONE MORE TIME. (see: Der Spiegel: Ukraine: How Merkel Prevented Ukraine’s NATO Membership (A DER SPIEGEL Reconstruction))
- The arguments of russia in their debate with the USA over the security ecosystem in europe were not “arguably both designed to fail” and completely unacceptable - only one of them was. Thats why they were the “arguments they started negotiations with, not their red lines” (according to Thomas Graham (CFR)), at least Chatham House got the second part right. But the devil is in the details, right?
- We didnt provide the Ukraine any air support, because the collective West made a mistake, no according to Zeihan - who was invited to US military headquarters at the time to give briefings about mineral deposit volumes, and trading routes, back then - the US military at least in part decided they wanted to test their new “military strategy for the world” to stop an adversary using long range precision artillery which they can (in future) supply on the cheap, and which doesnt need any direct US intervention, because any willing population, in any region of the world, can put it to use. (Especially brave hero warrior people in the Ukraine, which will be so valuable to Nato in the future…) Because it was deemed helpful to get data on how well this would work as a “mode of intervention” in other parts of the world.
Of course you cant say any of that at Chatham House openly…
But you guys just keep polishing over the rougher parts… Thats what you are getting paid for anyhow.
Thats three lies, for three points made within the first eight minutes.
Isnt that great?!
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut grotesk und abartigst Allerletzte.
